How often ? (1 Viewer)

Since I've had a PM accusing me of 'damning' all ringers, and 'casting dispersions', I'll make my own position clear (since some people have had difficulty understanding my posts).

1. I am not against ringing on conservation grounds per se: I recognise, as do many others who have tried to express concerns on this thread, the value of ringing where it leads directly to conservation efforts and further publication of knowledge that pertains to the status of wildbirds and does not in any way impinge on their individual safety or welfare, nor is excessive to need.

2. I am not against ringing per se: where BTO guidelines/objectives and techniques are actually carried out by all ringers who have been granted a licence to handle and ring wild birds. However, I would like to see further debate on the ethics of ringing vagrants and common 'garden' birds - in particular whether this practice can be always be regarded as having conservation objectives.

3. I am not against ringing per se: where special (eg CES) but frequent ringing is carried out to target a particular species if it is justified on conservation grounds. eg. where other forms of monitoring have raised particular concerns relating to population counts, feeding habits, habitat destruction etc and only CE will provide the information required to address those concerns.


Personally, it's not enough for me to repeatedly hear the 'Good Guide to Ringing' if it is also obvious from individual cases that this is not always followed by some ringers in the profession. Again, not questioning the Best Practice of ringing as outlined in Guidelines, or expressed by ringers on this thread, training scheme manuals etc but rather the apparent situation of a ringing profession that includes ringers who are apparently NOT following good practice. What I find disturbing is how little of this seems to be willingly taken on board and discussed by those apparently responsible for public PR - Certain people who have tried to illustrate their concerns with individual examples have been more or less told that they should discuss this in private rather than on a public forum, have had their concerns invalidated by various methods of debate, that their examples are extreme and rare cases, or been met with rote posts of what the situation should be if guidelines/ethos etc is followed on the ground. The fact is, that is not always the situation is it? The common response on this thread when bad examples have been illustrated, is to negate or justify them on the grounds other sections of the birding community behave just as badly or even worse, that people are targetting ringers and tarring them all with the same brush, or no discussion at all about the examples of bad practice given, but deliberate sign-posting to private individuals away from the Forum. This seems to be an evasion or invalidation of the concerns raised.

Trying to support a debate for these concerns, shouldn't be taken as a condemnation of BTO ringing schemes or otherwise but a condemnation of those who don't apparently follow guidelines or use their ringing skills for purposes other than conservation.

Best Practice, imv, deals with bad practice. {The examples show that bad practice does indeed exist}. This, IMV starts with public acknowledgement that things are not as they should be and there is room for improvement. This is GOOD PR!!! Not BAD PR!!! Bad PR is apparently being unwilling to publicly engage with these issues/concerns relating to bad practice, when they are raised by certain birders on a Public Forum, who's only agenda is the welfare and safety of wild birds. The common 'enemy' is those that apparently jeopardise that agenda, not those who feel it is being undermined by certain practices carried out in the field and want to raise it in public debate. ie. It's certain ringers that give the profession a 'bad name' not those of us who care enough to question frequency and motives!

So 2 questions for Mark et al:

1. Do you acknowledge bad practices exist and the welfare and safety of individual birds has been compromised by such practice (as outlined in some of the examples given in this thread)?

2. If so, what can you (others?) do to improve the monitoring/control of ringing in this Country to ensure 'bad practice' in the ringing profession is further minimised and the welfare and safety of wild birds is not just always foremost in Guidelines, but those guidelines are properly followed on the ground by all those who have been granted ringing licences? (Good PR which which at least would be a start in putting some people's mind at rest!)

However, I would like to see further debate on the ethics of ringing vagrants and common 'garden' birds - in particular whether this practice can be always be regarded as having conservation objectives.

Click to expand...

Hi Deborah just one comment on this that might help waylay some of your concerns around ringing common birds - it shouldn't be forgotten that the term common, when applied to any species, is purley a matter of time and space (think tree sparrow and house sparrow- 50 years ago 'common', now red listed!). The more we can find out about a species while there are lots of them, the better our postion to help them when/if they start declining. vagrants - thats another story, but I suppose ringing them helps with movement patterns when the birds are refound?

It was 'aspersions', Deborah4. You seem to be 'dispersing' something quite different....

JohnZ, I don't care what Colin said because I have nothing to do with Portuguese ringing, and it's a long way from Bough Beeches where this thread is supposed to be centred on. And I have a bit of trouble accpeting things as described. But if it's all true, then it breaches all ringing codes, so there's your answer.

And as for ranting, or 'picking on' anyone, there only seems to be one person ranting on this thread, from the very start of it, while I seem to be being singled out for lengthy, petty and rather ranty PM's out of the blue from somebody else. (Please stop, by the way).

Anyway, this thread appears to have gone way off-topic into the relams of irrationality, so I think I'm with Black Wheatear on this, and I'll leave this over-exciteable thread to those who want to carry on.

deborah4 said:

1. Do you acknowledge bad practices exist and the welfare and safety of individual birds has been compromised by such practice (as outlined in some of the examples given in this thread)?

2. If so, what can you (others?) do to improve the monitoring/control of ringing in this Country to ensure 'bad practice' in the ringing profession is further minimised and the welfare and safety of wild birds is not just always foremost in Guidelines, but those guidelines are properly followed on the ground by all those who have been granted ringing licences? (Good PR which which at least would be a start in putting some people's mind at rest!)

Click to expand...

1. Yes I can admit that bad practices exist!!!!
2. There are many people, which did lost license or did not get them because of such bad practices!!!!

I hope you satisfied now!!!!

If so, may I address same questions for you? becide I am bird watcher and nature photographer, so I am some were in the midle
1. Do you acknowledge bad practices exist among bird watchers and nature photographers and the welfare and safety of individual birds has been compromised by such practice (as outlined in some of the examples given in this thread)?
2. If so, what can you (others?) do to improve the people respect ness to birds at time they watch or photograph birds for now scientific or monitoring/control reason?

I hope that finally you will realise, that there is a lot of control and pressure directed to ringers, however nothing directed to bird-watchers and nature photographers.

kuksa said:

1. Yes I can admit that bad practices exist!!!!
2. There are many people, which did lost license or did not get them because of such bad practices!!!!

I hope you satisfied now!!!!

Click to expand...

I really don't understand all the exclaimation marks and that last comment at all - I'd hoped my post was constructive enough not to illicit such an imflammed and rather emotional response.

As for your other points: please read my earlier posts where several times Ive said the behaviour of birders, photographers is irrelvant to this discussion. If you are concerned about 'bad practices' in other areas of birding, please start a new thread. This one is debating issues regarding ringing.

Thankyou.

RICH: I take your point entirely re: where ringing birds could provide future information but I'm not sure how much more ringing can determine about 'common' birds that we haven't already discovered through other means of study. Can further ringing of for example declining populations of House Sparrow, Tree Sparrow tell us more about the CAUSE of why they are declining or indeed make us put more effort into managing garden/urban and rural space in a way that is more conducive to healthy breeding populations. I'm thinking also for example of Twite populations. The monitoring of Twite in Scotland for example has produced valuable information about population status in particular areas. I can see how ringing might establish movement or lack of movement of population of Twite, but wouldn't also close monitoring and specie targetted bird counts in wider areas also provide that information and thus help to establish reasons for apparent decline in some areas or lack of movement in others? I'm not sure what further ringing of common species can tell us that monitoring, specific bird counts, Garden Watches, etc has not already told us? Surely the conservation value of ringing results is acting on what is known from those results rather than just further ringing for the nebulous possibility it 'might be useful' in the future?

I don't know enough I admit about the specific information that has been derived from ringing vis a vis other methods of study, to engage in a detailed discussion, but doesn't the arguments/debates on this thread revolve around:

1. Examples of where ringing hasn't been carried out for conservation purposes (notwithstanding those that are really justifiable on future contingency?)
2. And the 'bad practices' that have been reported, and how the Ringing fraternity might help to tighten up controls over ringers so birds are not subjected to trapping unless absolutely necessary for conservation purposes? It doesn't really help to suggest all 'Ringing' has conservation value because that is the purpose of ringing. It's clear from examples, and from what I have heard from other ringers incidently, that for some ringers, there are different reasons for wanted to ring birds.

Again, this isn't an 'anti-ringing' stance, merely desiring that Best Practice in ringing requires conservation objectives to be evaluated within a multi-method environment that's available for the study of wild bird populations/behaviour as a whole and if a less intrusive and potentially harmful method is available to produce results, it should be carried out. Bearing in mind, that netting/trapping doesn't just catch target species but everything that happens to fly into the net regardless of its kind.

deborah4 said:

So 2 questions for Mark et al:

1. Do you acknowledge bad practices exist and the welfare and safety of individual birds has been compromised by such practice (as outlined in some of the examples given in this thread)?

2. If so, what can you (others?) do to improve the monitoring/control of ringing in this Country to ensure 'bad practice' in the ringing profession is further minimised and the welfare and safety of wild birds is not just always foremost in Guidelines, but those guidelines are properly followed on the ground by all those who have been granted ringing licences? (Good PR which which at least would be a start in putting some people's mind at rest!)

Click to expand...

There have been some instances of bad practice, but we work incredibly hard to avoid them and they are very rare indeed. Any such incidents are investigated and appropriate action is always taken.

To avoid bad practice developing in the first place, the BTO has a training system that involves ringing courses (which involve ringers from all over the country) and independent assessment of a ringer’s abilities when they apply for a permit. In addition, all of our trainers (and assessors) are themselves reviewed on a regular basis.

Finally, we ask anyone who has any concerns about any ringing to talk to the ringers and, if not satisfied, to contact us so that we can investigate.

Mark Grantham
On behalf of the BTO Ringing Scheme

Mark Grantham said:

To answer this quickly and easily, the BTO Scheme rings around 850,000 birds annually and receives around 12,000 reports back. The reporting rate varies according to size of bird (a Mute Swan is far more likely to be found than a Dunnock), likelihood of finding (an urban Blue Tit is more likely to be found than a moorland Meadow Pipit), and susceptibility to death (a Barn Owl hunting alongside a main road is more likely to be killed than a Tawny Owl hunting alongside a woodland).

Mark Grantham
BTO Ringing Unit

Click to expand...

Cheers Mark

deborah4 said:

I'm thinking also for example of Twite populations. The monitoring of Twite in Scotland for example has produced valuable information about population status in particular areas. I can see how ringing might establish movement or lack of movement of population of Twite.

Click to expand...

you're right there:
http://blx1.bto.org/pdf/ringmigration/23_2/raine.pdf

JohnZ said:

You can all now rest assured that I would not have anything to do with ringing, and especially its participants, if my life depended on it.

Click to expand...

That's clearly your prerogative, but I can't help feeling that this is rather disappointingly blinkered. Colin and others have made the point that although there may be problems with a minority of ringers, it is just that: a minority. Despite this, you're not willing to have anything to do with any ringers at all? I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater....

Furthermore, have you not read the constructive, unemotive, and above all helpful comments that Mark Grantham has made here? His responses on a public forum strike me as above and beyond the call of duty, and deserve great credit and thanks.

I take your point entirely re: where ringing birds could provide future information but I'm not sure how much more ringing can determine about 'common' birds that we haven't already discovered through other means of study.

To be honest we still no relatively little about most bird species includingt he common ones. Yes some are well studied, but the fact of the matter is we live in a very dynamic environment. What we know as "fact" today might not be applicable 5, 10, 15 years down the line. So continued study is always the way forward.

Click to expand...

Can further ringing of for example declining populations of House Sparrow, Tree Sparrow tell us more about the CAUSE of why they are declining or indeed make us put more effort into managing garden/urban and rural space in a way that is more conducive to healthy breeding populations. I'm thinking also for example of Twite populations. The monitoring of Twite in Scotland for example has produced valuable information about population status in particular areas. I can see how ringing might establish movement or lack of movement of population of Twite, but wouldn't also close monitoring and specie targetted bird counts in wider areas also provide that information and thus help to establish reasons for apparent decline in some areas or lack of movement in others? I'm not sure what further ringing of common species can tell us that monitoring, specific bird counts, Garden Watches, etc has not already told us?

Click to expand...

This is where people get confused on the value of ringing as a monitoring/survey tool. Direct bird counts (i.e. surveys) can only tell you so much - if a species is there or not and its population trend. Other than that they tell you nothing. What they don’t tell you is about the population level trends in terms of productivity, survival etc. When you ring a bird you give it a unique number – but with that comes knowing more about the bird as an individual. How old it is (at least a minimum age) where it was originally ringed etc. This allows you to explore mechanism behind declines. You can explore variations in survival year on year, between different cohorts, areas and so on. Movement is just one of many things. It also allows you to investigate how these change as the population’s fortunes change. Ringing can give you a better idea of exactly how many birds are using mitigation put in place for them than direct counts alone. To give you an example I used to work on a project that involved funding a cover crop for yellowhammer. Direct counts revealed that around 30 birds used that field each time it was surveyed. Ringing showed the turn over – over 30 yellowhammer were caught and rung there one winter and not one was retrapped. If you scanned the hedges you would see say 30 yellowhammer, during some counts only five would have rings, other day 0, some days 20. Potential recoveries and further ringing (perhaps even colour) will show how far these birds are coming to use the field. Ringing can allow investigation that direct counts/surveys cannot.

Surely the conservation value of ringing results is acting on what is known from those results rather than just further ringing for the nebulous possibility it 'might be useful' in the future?

Click to expand...

As I said above, we do live in a changing environment, which let’s face it is going to see more species decline, and even those we have “saved” aren’t so secure as we would like to think. Surely it is better to collect as much information now, even if it isn’t used, than to find ourselves in a position 10 years down the line thinking, “if only we knew XXXX”? And watching another species disappearing. We need the data to know what’s happening. Effectively saying stop ringing common species etc is the same as saying suspend BBS or other forms of monitoring because we know the populations of birds are doing. I can see someone responding “you can start ringing once a species has been shown to be declining” so I’ll get in first – it takes time to build up a data set like those held by for eg the BTO. By the time you have that data the species might well beyond saving. Basically what I am trying to say is ringing is one of many techniques that allow to keep an eye on what is happening. Long-term and continuing data sets allow us to respond much much more quickly to declines, it allows us to make projections and be proactive. There is a limited amount the data from surveys alone can tell you, and the same is true with nest recording, ringing etc on their own they only tell part of the story – together you at least have an idea of what the picture is.

I couldn't have put that better myself Rich!

David, I am sure that you have been following this thread. Have you read some of the things that have been said on it ? There have been attacks on the validity of at least one persons experiences. There has been verbal abuse and bullying. There has been comparison made to the activities of bird watchers, photographers and twitchers none of which have the slightest thing to do with my original question.
I have been assured that any "Bad apples" in the ringing community are a minority but no mention that the same may apply to similar in the bird watching, photography or twitching community. As for being disappointingly blinkered then I have to confess that this was not the case until I read some of the posts on my thread. It is the tone of these posts that has really surprised me.
I may be 100% incorrect but I suspect that the more vociferous the protest then the more that particular person is involved in ringing. There is no need to name names but I think we may both know that some of the posts on here were just unacceptable. As for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.....you may well be right but I have now been influenced by some of the jaundiced opinion seen on this thread. And I most certainly stick by that which I said.
I have read all of Marks posts and I have been in touch with Mark via the BTO. It is beyond the call of duty to respond as Mark has and I would like to thank him too.

JohnZ
My post was not intended to be "patronizing" in the least, the ringers I personally know (and I underline personally) are all professional minded people with the welfare of the bird always in first place and their reasons for ringing are in ALL cases aimed at conservation efforts. I apologize if it came over any other way. I also apologize if you were offended by the "trainspotter" pun, my intention was just to make a point about disturbing birds for personal gain.

Answering your initial query, here on Mallorca there at the moment 4 constant effort ringing stations, all in protected areas. They are visited once a week, all year round. On that day 5 visits are made to the nets from dawn once every hour.

I also join Black Wheatear and Poecile in that "enough said". Many thanks to Mark also for his contributions.

Regards Steve (Esteban)

JohnZ said:

There has been verbal abuse and bullying.

Click to expand...

Off-topic, so I allowed myself back in for this one. JohnZ, verbal abuse and bullying are against the rules of the forum. If you think it's occurred and clearly violated these rules then I suggest you report it to the moderators. Otherwise, accept it as the robust debate it was, on a contentious subject, and just because it doesn't happen to chime with your ideas it doesn't make it any less valid.

Mark Grantham said:

There have been some instances of bad practice, but we work incredibly hard to avoid them and they are very rare indeed. Any such incidents are investigated and appropriate action is always taken.

...

Finally, we ask anyone who has any concerns about any ringing to talk to the ringers and, if not satisfied, to contact us so that we can investigate.

Mark Grantham
On behalf of the BTO Ringing Scheme

Click to expand...

Thanks for your response, Mark. I still have reservations both about the extent/frequency/purpose of ringing in certain situations and obviously am disturbed as anyone else about the reports of bad practice. I feel very much assured though that you 'work incredibly hard to avoid' these incidences. I don't think there's been any sense at all during this thread, of the BTO condoning them. However, dealing with bad practice also relies on other ringers acting as a 'watchdog' and making sure they report immediately to you, or other proper authority if they witness behaviour inconsistent with the ethos and objectives of ringing. I'm sure this could be difficult for people individually at times, but hopefully their concern for the welfare of wild birds would overide any sense of loyalty to 'fellow ringers' etc. and like you, urge that they do help monitor activities, not just for the sake of birds but also for the sake of the Ringing profession as a whole. I hope sincerely, if anyone is witnessed to have behaved in the manner Colin exampled, they immediately have their Licence evoked and are never allowed to ring again. Wild birds are under enough stress as it is. It's clear that ringing with correct motive and practice is very important part of much needed conservation effort, especially with agricultural practices, climate change, urban development all being such challenging factors for wild bird populations in the UK.

RICH

Many thanks for your detailed response. I just hope that conservationists/politicians put as much effort in actually addressing the underlying causes of declining bird populations, especially our more 'common' ones as much as efforts in ringing is able to collate information about them, otherwise there's no point to any of it IMV.

deborah4 said:

I just hope that conservationists/politicians put as much effort in actually addressing the underlying causes of declining bird populations,

Click to expand...

It would be naive to leave it to the politicians. We elect them - we should make our views heard - thats what they're there for. Otherwise we cant really complain!

Anyone for a protest? I've got a megaphone...(!?!)

Ausable Bird Observatory said:

It would be naive to leave it to the politicians. We elect them - we should make our views heard - thats what they're there for. Otherwise we cant really complain!

Click to expand...

I feel I can! Have spent many years making my views known about environmental and conservation issues (both from within political parties and as member of various NGO's) and still do, so certainly not 'naive' enough to think anything will change without a long and concerted effort from those of us who care, whether we happen to use the political system or otherwise. If ringers collate information pointing to disturbing evidence of environmental/agricultural/developmental impact on bird populations, they also have a duty to help ensure those changes are effected along with everyone else. You don't need a megaphone, just a bit of spare time to join a campaign organisation, write letters, fundraise, sign petitions etc etc

JohnZ said:

David, I am sure that you have been following this thread. Have you read some of the things that have been said on it ? There have been attacks on the validity of at least one persons experiences. There has been verbal abuse and bullying. There has been comparison made to the activities of bird watchers, photographers and twitchers none of which have the slightest thing to do with my original question.
I have been assured that any "Bad apples" in the ringing community are a minority but no mention that the same may apply to similar in the bird watching, photography or twitching community. As for being disappointingly blinkered then I have to confess that this was not the case until I read some of the posts on my thread. It is the tone of these posts that has really surprised me.
I may be 100% incorrect but I suspect that the more vociferous the protest then the more that particular person is involved in ringing. There is no need to name names but I think we may both know that some of the posts on here were just unacceptable. As for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.....you may well be right but I have now been influenced by some of the jaundiced opinion seen on this thread. And I most certainly stick by that which I said.
I have read all of Marks posts and I have been in touch with Mark via the BTO. It is beyond the call of duty to respond as Mark has and I would like to thank him too.

Click to expand...

John,

I'm glad you've recognised that Mark has done a good job here.

I've not only read some of the things that have been said on here, but all of them. I don't see much wrong with them, either - verbal abuse and bullying is simply not the case. The site is moderated, and well moderated too, so offensive posts don't remain when they do occur - I know, I've been on the receiving end, and seen it stamped out.

Maybe no-one has acknowledged here that there are bad apples in twitching / birding / bird photographing circles ... but why would they? As you've said more than once, this thread is about ringing, not these pastimes. (For the record, I'll readily acknowledge that there are some bad apples on all those trees, as you'd expect - and recommend you just browse this forum to find discussions all about them, if you don't believe me!)

I can understand how you may have been influenced by this thread - for all I know, it may be the only experience you've had on the subject of ringing, aside from negative feelings about Bough Beech as discussed.

What I cannot understand in any way is how you can honestly say that you will have nothing to do with ringing and any of its participants based on this thread alone. It's just like saying "I've seen the Hillsborough tragedy, and now I'll have nothing to do with anyone who's been to see a football match". Please keep an open mind.